34 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Episode aside, the notion that Coercive language to avoid a fight altogether and Conflict is automatic but use the level a violence a lightsaber visits upon a target, deathblow or not, won't lead to the same is silly. I can kill a Sith during the course of a fight but I can't scare them into surrender. Silly.

This iteration of Star Wars RPGs takes the whols "Fear leads to anger and so on" very serious. You can get conflict for failing fear checks badly. Terrify is a completely non-violent Talent that carries an automatic conflict cost.

17 minutes ago, Fistofpaper said:

It's not a scathing tirade, but it is an example of Scathing Tirade. ST is just the mirror opposite talent of Inspiring Rhetoric, not an attempt at Coercion. I don't expect a real inspirational or demeaning speech when it's used, although it is welcome.

Scathing Tirade is a Talent that causes actual combat damage by inflicting negative emotions. That's conflict-worthy. It doesn't matter what skill it uses.

7 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

"My name is General Mace Windu of the Jedi Order. At this point of the Clone War, I have dismantled and destroyed over 100,000 of you type one battle droids. I’m giving you an opportunity to peacefully lay down your weapons so that you may be reprogrammed to serve a better purpose than spreading the mindless violence and chaos, which you have inflicted upon the galaxy."

Not a Scathing Tirade. And I wasnt asking for an example where the user is trying to make peace. I want an example where the PC uses Scathing Tirade (staying true to the Talents intent.) and still plans on killing them, while not generating conflict.

In other words, a PC is in the midst of a battle with an adversary, and attempts to mentally demolish them before killing them. Sounds exactly what a good guy would do...

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

Episode aside, the notion that Coercive language to avoid a fight altogether and Conflict is automatic but use the level a violence a lightsaber visits upon a target, deathblow or not, won't lead to the same is silly. I can kill a Sith during the course of a fight but I can't scare them into surrender. Silly.

You're completely missing the notion that its not meant to make people surrender. Rather easier to kill.

We're talking about mentally deconstructing an enemy and then still planning to kill them. How is that hard to wrap your head around?

15 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

You're completely missing the notion that its not meant to make people surrender. Rather easier to kill.

We're talking about mentally deconstructing an enemy and then still planning to kill them. How is that hard to wrap your head around?

Scathing Tirade sure can be used to make them surrender--that's one way to play exceeding their ST. Conflict would come with then killing them after they are helpless. If Scathing Tirade is just used to take them down/out without actually running them through with a laser sword, then it's actually the less nasty option.

Here, Babylon 5 gives a few more examples of Scathing Tirade:

• Delenn : [Delenn's fleet arrives after Earth Alliance attacks B5] This is Ambassador Delenn of the Minbari. Babylon 5 is under our protection. Withdraw or be destroyed!

  Earth Force Officer : Negative! We have authority here. Do not force us to engage your ship.

  Delenn : Why not? Only one human captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari Fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else!

Susan Ivanova:
This is the White Star fleet. Negative on the surrender. We will not stand down.

Captain Thomson, Earthforce:
Who is this? Identify yourself!

Susan Ivanova:
Who am I? I am Susan Ivanova. Commander. Daughter of Andrei and Sophie Ivanov. I am the right hand of vengeance, and the boot that is going to kick your sorry *** all the way back to Earth, sweetheart! I am Death Incarnate, and the last living thing that you are ever going to see. God sent me.

1 hour ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

You're completely missing the notion that its not meant to make people surrender. Rather easier to kill.

We're talking about mentally deconstructing an enemy and then still planning to kill them. How is that hard to wrap your head around?

You didn't ask or pose your question like that originally. How hard is it to wrap your head around being honest?

14 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

You didn't ask or pose your question like that originally. How hard is it to wrap your head around being honest?

There's something called a leading question. Saying "Is mentally deconstructing and then planning to kill the target worthy of Conflict?" is a leading question because of framing devices.

This:

Quote

Here's my question, do you think Scathing Tirade should be as implied, as way to intimidate and Coerce your opponents to make them fear you, which probably should generate conflict. Or can it be used in a more subtle way? Does this go against the intended nature of the Talent?

is not a leading question, and is an honest question. Should it be used as implied? [interpretation of implication] Or is there another way? Does this different way go against the nature of the talent?

When it comes to actually arguing the point, the person has the freedom to bring out a more biased view of the circumstance because they no longer have to worry about framing the question. Still not dishonest, merely their point of view.

Beyond that, their perception and position may have shifted based on received inputs. Calling him dishonest is a bridge too far.

15 hours ago, 2P51 said:

You didn't ask or pose your question like that originally. How hard is it to wrap your head around being honest?

Apologies, didn't mean to come across as dishonest. I could have been clearer.

I'd still like your viewpoint however, let's say the user of Scathing Tirade is not trying to cause his opponent to surrender, rather they are going on the offensive emotionally/mentally to make dispatching their foe easier.

Do you think this Coercion is conflict worthy?

7 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Apologies, didn't mean to come across as dishonest. I could have been clearer.

I'd still like your viewpoint however, let's say the user of Scathing Tirade is not trying to cause his opponent to surrender, rather they are going on the offensive emotionally/mentally to make dispatching their foe easier.

Do you think this Coercion is conflict worthy?

So your question is whether Conflict is based on intent over action?

In such a case, then the answer depends on whether battle is already joined. Used in a battle, ST to make an opponent easier to dispatch is no different from using a lightsaber technique (like Saber Throw) to make an opponent easier to dispatch. The only meaningful question is whether the act of dispatching that foe is worthy of Conflict, not what tool is used to do it.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

So your question is whether Conflict is based on intent over action?

In such a case, then the answer depends on whether battle is already joined. Used in a battle, ST to make an opponent easier to dispatch is no different from using a lightsaber technique (like Saber Throw) to make an opponent easier to dispatch. The only meaningful question is whether the act of dispatching that foe is worthy of Conflict, not what tool is used to do it.

See I can't agree with that. Scathing Tirade is a Coercion check by the rules and its very nature is to attack the morale of the opposer through aggressive, scornful and serverly critical communication.

I find it difficult to accept that a good person would use such a tactic to overcome their enemies, or if they did would no doubt feel conflicted about their actions.

This to me, is a method used by the more morally ambiguous or down right baddies in general like a Sith. We see such displays from them all the time, it's a product of who they are or have become.

In any case, I think I completely agree with @P-47 Thunderbolt answer to my question and will use this going forward. Thanks for the replies everyone.

1 hour ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

See I can't agree with that. Scathing Tirade is a Coercion check by the rules and its very nature is to attack the morale of the opposer through aggressive, scornful and serverly critical communication.

I find it difficult to accept that a good person would use such a tactic to overcome their enemies, or if they did would no doubt feel conflicted about their actions.

This to me, is a method used by the more morally ambiguous or down right baddies in general like a Sith. We see such displays from them all the time, it's a product of who they are or have become.

In any case, I think I completely agree with @P-47 Thunderbolt answer to my question and will use this going forward. Thanks for the replies everyone.

So if a Jedi and a Sith are in a lightsaber duel (presumably to the death), and the Jedi uses Scathing Tirade to belittle the Sith's lightsaber technique to wear him down with Strain, that's Conflict worthy while simply battering away at the Sith with attacks and wearing him down with Strain by forcing him to Parry is not Conflict worthy?

8 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

So if a Jedi and a Sith are in a lightsaber duel (presumably to the death), and the Jedi uses Scathing Tirade to belittle the Sith's lightsaber technique to wear him down with Strain, that's Conflict worthy while simply battering away at the Sith with attacks and wearing him down with Strain by forcing him to Parry is not Conflict worthy?

Yes. It's not the end that is at issue, but rather the means to the end and the emotion behind the means.

It's very hard to "do the right thing" because it requires right motive, means, end, and result.

17 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yes. It's not the end that is at issue, but rather the means to the end and the emotion behind the means.

It's very hard to "do the right thing" because it requires right motive, means, end, and result.

Foolish beliefs like that are what got the Jedi killed.

46 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

So if a Jedi and a Sith are in a lightsaber duel (presumably to the death), and the Jedi uses Scathing Tirade to belittle the Sith's lightsaber technique to wear him down with Strain, that's Conflict worthy while simply battering away at the Sith with attacks and wearing him down with Strain by forcing him to Parry is not Conflict worthy?

This is Star Wars. Intent doesn't matter even a little bit when it comes to morality, which is very black and white.

If intent mattered, Anakin wouldn't have fallen.

Plus, it's not as if a few points of conflict matter all that much in this system. This isn't the West End D6 game, where one bad decision could turn your character into a dark side NPC on the roll of one d6.

Finally, when fighting a Sith, making them more angry generally or scared isn't a fantastic idea because that's where their power comes from. I'd probably flip some destiny points and have the talent backfire by healing the Sith's strain.

25 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Foolish beliefs like that are what got the Jedi killed.

Without those beliefs, they aren't Jedi at all.

And really, the Jedi were killed because they abandoned those beliefs by allowing themselves to be dragged into fighting a war.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Foolish beliefs like that are what got the Jedi killed.

That's the sort of pragmatism that in this system either leads to an eventual fall to the Dark Side or to a Morality that hovers around 50. That's what Conflict is supposed to represent.

After today's events in the US capitol, my viewpoint has shifted in regards to this question. Rack up that conflict, it's deserved for sure.

3 hours ago, Fistofpaper said:

After today's events in the US capitol, my viewpoint has shifted in regards to this question. Rack up that conflict, it's deserved for sure.

Who delivered a Scathing Tirade?

14 hours ago, Fistofpaper said:

After today's events in the US capitol, my viewpoint has shifted in regards to this question. Rack up that conflict, it's deserved for sure.

Maybe in the last few days of these forums, let's not inject RL politics. Have some respect for the dying...

32 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Maybe in the last few days of these forums, let's not inject RL politics. Have some respect for the dying...

Why? Are we concerned that someone who is otherwise a cool Star Wars dude is gonna be a conspiracy-gobbling insurrectionist? I mean, wouldn't you want to know?

It's not like we didn't have a whole trilogy with the head of the Republic sowing chaos and war in an effort to entrench his own power and rule the galaxy, so ya know, not like there aren't parallels.

37 minutes ago, False God said:

Why? Are we concerned that someone who is otherwise a cool Star Wars dude is gonna be a conspiracy-gobbling insurrectionist? I mean, wouldn't you want to know?

It's not like we didn't have a whole trilogy with the head of the Republic sowing chaos and war in an effort to entrench his own power and rule the galaxy, so ya know, not like there aren't parallels.

With that second statement, you just associated half the country with an extremely small fringe. That's why @whafrog said don't bring up politics right now.

1 hour ago, False God said:

It's not like we didn't have a whole trilogy with the head of the Republic sowing chaos and war in an effort to entrench his own power and rule the galaxy, so ya know, not like there aren't parallels.

There are parallels, but that's not the point. The point is you don't have to flop out every opinion you have wherever you go. When I'm on a stock board, we talk about stocks; on a photography board we talk about equipment and composition. This board is about a game and how to run it. If you can't respect boundaries, then you're no better than the people you're mad at.

3 hours ago, whafrog said:

Maybe in the last few days of these forums, let's not inject RL politics. Have some respect for the dying...

My hope and sole intent is that the message taken from it is more that I changed my mind regarding Scathing Tirade generating conflict on use.

Hmm, how would you stat a group of insurrectionists who storm a government building? Average Intellect but low Willpower? I think they're rocking some Inspiring Rhetoric, rather than Scathing Tirade, since they got the cops on their side so readily.

Isn't there an Incite rebellion ability from the Propagandist?